M/S Unique Labels Vs Chethan Sinchana Steels and Hardware

M/S UNIQUE LABELS PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPT. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY PETITIONER NO.2 AND 1^ST SY.NO.179/2, GROUND FLOOR INDRANI ESTATE, NEAR KHODAYS GLASS FACTORY KOTHANUR BENGALURU – 560 062

¶11

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MR. M BHARATH REDDY S/O M LAKSHMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 Y EARS, MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S UNIQUE LABELS PARTNERSHIP FIRM

¶13

MRS. DIVYA T W/O M BHARATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PARTNER OF M/s UNIQUE LABELS PARTNERSHIP FIRM

¶14

PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.411, 2^ND FLOOR, UMA NIVAS, ROYAL COUNTY, JAMBUSAVARIDINNE, BENGALURU-560 083. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAVI.J.S, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:441 CRL.P No. 7388 of 2023

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

CHETHAN SINCHANA STEELS AND HARDWARE SALAGERE ROAD, FORT, ARKALGUD-573102 REPRESENTED THOUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR, MR. CHETHAN C K S/O C T KRISHNE GOWDA.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. DHANANJAYA D L, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I ACT AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED 23.03.2023 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, ARAKALGUD.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are before this

¶27

Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.358/2023 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Arakalagud.

¶28

Heard Sri Ravi J.S. learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dhananjaya D.L. learned counsel for the respondent.

¶29

The petitioners and the respondent have transactions amongst themselves with regard to supply of steel. In

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:441 CRL.P No. 7388 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

furtherance of the transactions, it transpires that the petitioners had issued a cheque for an amount of ₹22,50,000/-. The cheque when presented is dishonored on account of want of funds. This leads the complainant to take steps under the Negotiable Instruments Act and later, invoke the provisions of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in registering a private complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶33

The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence and issues summons. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court challenging the said order passed by the concerned Court.

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the cheque was secured from the hands of these petitioners after abducting them and forcibly taking their signatures on the cheque. On that ground the petitioners had already registered a crime and the police after investigation had filed a charge sheet against a particular person, one Satish Kumar who had threatened and taken signatures on the cheque.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:441 CRL.P No. 7388 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

It is the case of the petitioners that said Satish Kumar had handed over the cheque to the present complainant and therefore, proceedings should not be permitted to be continued.

¶39

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ complainant submits that the proceeding against Satish Kumar was challenged in Criminal Petition No.10436/2023. The coordinate Bench of this court has quashed the proceedings against Satish Kumar, finding no offence of Section 384 of Indian Penal Code, as ingredients of Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code had not been met in the case at hand. The said judgment has become final is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. He would otherwise contend that the complaint so registered and charge sheet so filed has nothing to do with the present complainant as the parties to the lis are entirely different. He would submit that issuance of cheque is admitted. Once that is admitted, it becomes a matter of trial.

¶40

I have given my anxious consideration to the afore narrated facts.

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:441 CRL.P No. 7388 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

The transaction between the petitioners and the respondent is a matter of record. In furtherance of said transaction, issuance of a cheque on 26.12.2022 is also a matter of record. The plea set up by the petitioners/accused is that they were abducted and forcibly signature on the cheque was taken would undoubtedly become a matter of trial.

¶44

This Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot now telescope its imagination of what has happened prior to issuance of the cheque unless the parties would lead evidence.

¶45

Insofar as the registration of the crime and the filing of the charge sheet is concerned, as submitted by the counsel appearing to the respondent, it is between the present complainant though petitioners remain the same.

¶46

The finding of the co-ordinate Bench would become necessary to be noticed in the case at hand as the submission is with regard to abduction, extortion and forcibly taking signatures on the cheque.

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:441 CRL.P No. 7388 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

The co-ordinate Bench, in its order dated 12.01.2024 passed in Criminal Petition No.10436/2023 observes as follows:

¶51

“16. In the case on hand, it has to be noted that a specific allegation of kidnapping of her husband and abduction was made but no such cheques which have been forcibly taken were seized during the course of investigation. Admittedly, there was a financial transaction between the petitioner and respondent No.2. It is also not in dispute that two cases were initiated against respondent No.2 under Section 138 of N.I. Act and cognizance was taken and the cases are pending. Having considered the material available on record it is nothing but offshoot of a complaint as against the proceedings initiated against respondent No.2 under Section 138 of N.I.Act. It is also important to note that in the complaint there is no allegation of 17 dishonest intention on the part of this petitioner. It is very clear that in order to invoke Section 420 of IPC, there must be dishonest intention from the very beginning which is sine qua non to hold that accused is guilty for commission of the said offence. The police while filing the charge sheet, deleted Section 365 of IPC and invoked Sections 420 and 384 of IPC. When the investigating officer comes to the conclusion that there was no kidnapping and also not seized any cheques as alleged by the complainant, the question of invoking Section 420 of IPC does not arise. Only if any such valuable document is collected or deceived to deliver any property or any person, the very allegation of kidnapping or collecting cheques have to be made. But in the case on

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:441 CRL.P No. 7388 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

hand, no such ingredients are found to invoke Section 420 of IPC.”

¶56

In the light of the said finding, as also the emphatic submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they were abducted and forced to put their signatures on the cheque would undoubtedly require evidence which this Court would not entertain in the exercise of jurisdiction as observed above under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶57

Therefore, the petition lacking in merit stands rejected .

¶58

All the contentions remain open to be urged before the concerned Court.

¶59

Ordered accordingly.

¶60

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶61

kcm

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

M/S Unique Labels v. Chethan Sinchana Steels and Hardware

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Unique Labels v. Chethan Sinchana Steels and Hardware

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Shravith K .L Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Devandar Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Anbu. D., Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath Reddy, Vs State of Karnataka

Asha G Vs State of Karnataka

Udaya @ Subramanya B T Vs the State of Karnataka